2019 (11) TMI 38 - HC - GST

Protection of welfare rights of the registered GST dealers by directing the respondents not to bother in earning livelihood by fair means of registered GSTN dealers and remove the hurdles for smooth business operations for the welfare of GSTN dealers and society as well - HELD THAT - In the present case, we are not satisfied that this is a genuine petition filed in public interest so as to invoke the jurisdiction in the public interest under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the public interest litigation filed for the welfare of GSTN registered dealers.
2. Compliance with the requirements of filing a Public Interest Litigation.
3. Verification of petitioner's credentials and genuineness of the petition.
4. Misuse and abuse of the court process in the present case.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the public interest litigation:
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of mandamus to protect the welfare rights of registered GST dealers. The petitioner alleged harassment faced by poor and weaker GSTN registered dealers due to unfair trade practices and unhealthy business atmosphere created by the respondents. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition, citing the lack of due disclosure as required by the Allahabad High Court Rules. They argued that the petitioner did not comply with the rules, which were amended following a Supreme Court judgment, and requested the dismissal of the petition.

Issue 2: Compliance with the requirements of filing a Public Interest Litigation:
The court emphasized the importance of ensuring the purity and sanctity of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) by discouraging petitions with personal gain or oblique motives. It was noted that the court should verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL and ensure that the petition aims at redressing genuine public harm or injury. The amendments made to the High Court Rules, 1952, following a Supreme Court judgment, highlighted the need for petitioners to state their credentials, the public cause they are advocating, and confirm the absence of personal interests or motives that could lead to undue gain or loss.

Issue 3: Verification of petitioner's credentials and genuineness of the petition:
The court found that the petitioner failed to provide details about their own credentials, leading to the conclusion that the petition was a misuse and abuse of the court process. It was determined that the petition did not meet the criteria of being a genuine public interest petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court stressed the importance of ensuring that the jurisdiction in public interest cases is invoked by individuals with bona fide credentials and genuine intentions to prevent misuse by those seeking to pursue personal interests.

Issue 4: Misuse and abuse of the court process in the present case:
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that it was not a genuine petition filed in the public interest. The lack of disclosure of the petitioner's credentials and the failure to meet the requirements set out in the High Court Rules led to the decision that the petition was a misuse and abuse of the court process. The judgment highlighted the need to discourage petitions filed with oblique motives and ensure that PILs are aimed at addressing legitimate public concerns.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the court's scrutiny of the petitioner's credentials, compliance with the rules governing PILs, and the importance of genuine intentions in filing public interest litigations.